Hey Polygon. I don't know what the law is in Utah either. I have nothing in Kansas *I know of* that opens me to civil liability if I shot an assailent that has placed us in mortal fear but merely wound him. Civil law is a whole different animal from Criminal law. Under civil law for example, you are not protected by the 5th. I know from the hours spent trying to interpret legalese that I suck at it. That's why I enlist the help of others engaged in the same study. It's a much deeper issue than that though. I think this may sound stupid to you but I sincerely believe that if I had to shoot someone invading my house; I would evaluate each shot or group of shots I made. If I can possibly help it, I will do my level best not to take a life. At the same time, I will not stick around to render aid. This is simply due to a basic tenant of getting to safety first and foremost and calling for help. IMO, and the opinion of at least a few well trained individuals; rendering aid is a good way to either get killed by an unassumed assailent or contract a bloodborne pathogen. I will place shots as best as I can and then get my Wife to safety and call the authorities. No more---no less. I am not well trained for the rest of the mumbo-jumbo and could actually cause more harm than good anyway. I think we are at an empasse here. You seem to fear civil retribution and I can respect that and I do respect you . We are brothers in arms and we both clearly support the 2nd Amendment. I am far from agreement that it is ethical to kill someone over a monetary concern. I suspect; with no proof either way, that it is a misnomer to believe that you will be sued if you do not kill an assailent. I have certainly heard this story but I have not been able to confirm it. It appears to be an urban legend based on half-truths if any; but again, I have no evidence that it is completely false. I of all people understand that lack of proof does not prove anything. I would think that it is entirely possible someone would risk more civil liability by surviving family members if you were to keep shooting after the assailent falls. Think about the ballistics involved in our weapons brother. One or two bullets that penetrate the floor vice the walls of our properties could be evidence enough for a Jury to decide you executed an intruder instead of stopping a threat. And just so I don't sound like a passifist, I do want to reiterate that I would not give up the fight either. Even if I had to relaod the revolver/shotgun/pistol. Even if I squeezed the trigger until all I heard was "click, click", I would then turn that chunk of mass into a nice bludgeoning instrument. If they keep trying to hurt us, I keep shootin' and kickin' and stabbin and jukin' til they stop. NOW, if that means they are so stupid or amped up that they cannot be stopped alive, I believe I would subtract their soul from Earth. I think we're in 100% agreement there. I shudder at the thought. I hope neither you nor I ever have to deal with that sort of hell. The idea of an intruder suing a ritous defender after an attack angers me as much as it does you. It really does. I'm getting upset thinking about it and the possibility that the parents of the dead robber might be able to sue Mr. Ersland for whatever he might have had left. Especially when I have spent a lot of time trying to raise awareness through discussion and *typing* (for however little that is worth) about stopping a threat vs killing a the bad guys. That kid who was robbing the Pharmacy was obviously no Saint! And I'm darn glad that the two adults who talked the kid into it (these cowards sat in the get-away car around the corner) got convicted of murder for doing so. But again, I humbly caution us all to avoid letting anger and the certainty of ritousness be the judge to which control our actions. If Jerome had stopped to evaluate what he was doing, he would likely be a free man today. Just as the District Attorney involved in the case stated: Jerome "made himself judge, jury, executioner".

Yeah, I agree with you on almost everything. And I just want you to know that I'm not on the defensive or anything.

The reason I bolded those statements was that in public I will NEVER shoot to kill. In my home it's a different story. I thought you might be confusing the two or thinking that meant in public. In the story in particular, what he did was 2nd degree murder and that was a store front. That's much different from someone, in their home. I use a 12 gauge for home protection. You're pretty much guaranteed 1 shot, 1 kill in such close quarters. Unless you're completely inept. You're right, I can't find any solid evidence either regarding claims of assailants suing and winning after being injured in a home they broke into. However, on the flip side, I wouldn't put it past our legal system to do something so stupid. All I know is that every LEO I've talked to agrees. They come into your home, kill them. Not just for protection of monetary items, but mostly for safety.

Recently I saw a story about two attackers that broke into someone's home. Tied up the family which included two young girls. They made the wife go to the bank and empty their bank account. They said they would let them live. Well, no, they didn't. They raped the wife and the two girls and lit the house on fire burning the family alive.

I'm sorry, but I'm not giving anyone the chance to do that. I'll assume that they've broken into my home and they'll do me or my family bodily harm to get what they want and they'll do it even if I give it to them. Here in Utah, if someone breaks into your home there will be no prosecution by the DA. There is a law specifically stating that you can use lethal force if someone breaks into your home. I don't know about a civil suite though. However, I don't see it going anywhere. Perhaps I should talk to a lawyer about that. However, perhaps I could see it being an issue like in the story, where you've removed them as a thread and then executed them.

Like I said, if given the chance to offer such they will be given a stern warning to leave. If I don't have the opportunity to give that option or they refuse then they are going to die.

This might be high-jacking a little, but is performing a legitimate Mozambique drill during an encounter illegal???

Im not talking about 2 to the chest, and automatically one to the head, but rather a smooth double tap to the chest and an actual pause to assess the situation, you see he/she is still "active" and then perform a cranium/MO shot.

Or is it probably legal, but you have to deal with a zealous DA for "looking to kill"?

__________________كافر-INFIDEL

"The Marines I have seen around the world have, the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945

I think the main issue to me is not if the bad guy dies, I couldn't care less. It's the question of rather you made a decision to kill him, or if he died as a result of you stopping the threat. If you have to bust out a failure drill and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head...he's going to die. The question is: Did you shoot him twice in the chest and he kept coming so you shot him in the head in order to be sure you stopped him before he could harm or kill you? Or...Did you shoot him twice in the chest, he fell, then you shot him in the head while he was on the ground to excecute him, therefor making yourself guilty of murder?

The people who are investigating the crime scene will be able to tell these things. If someone kicks in your door and comes into your home, and two bullets passed through his chest and are now lodged in the wall, it will be seen that he was standing when shot. What about that third bullet, the one that went into the head? If it too is lodged somewhere in a wall you should be good to go since it's obvious the two to the chest did not put him down, In my reasoning at least, but I'm no lawyer or crime scene investigator. If that third bullet passed through the floor on the other side of his head, but the other two shots are lodged in a wall somewhere, I would say that makes it obvious you used that third shot as an excecuting shot to kill someone who was no longer a threat.

Forensics and ballistics will tell a lot of stories no matter how you try and justify or cover them up. To me it's not worth putting a final "finishing" round into someone who is down, just because I'm pissed and wanted to kill them for breaking into my home and threatening my family and I.

We as gun owners and legally armed citizens are held to a very high standard in this regard. Our laws state you may use only enough force to stop the threat...not that we may use as much force as necessary to kill the SOB. As much fun as it is for a lot of people to talk and type tough on the internet saying thing like "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but I'm killing the bastard and will sort it out later", "If you threaten me I WILL kill you, I don't care what anyone says", and "I don't care about laws, it's my right to defend myself and faimly how I see fit." These are the kind of statements and mind set that will get you put behind bars and leave your family alone and bankrupt. Not worth it to me. That's why we owe it to ourselves to train often with our weapons and know our laws to the best of our ability. I will not end up dead over some perp because I'm afraid to defend myself, nor will I spend my life in prison because I fancy myself some kind of badass that can do what I want and get away with it.

__________________
"They're on our right, they're on our left, they're in front of us, they're behind us; they can't get away from us this time."
Chesty Puller, USMC, Chosin Reservoir, Korean War

"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth - and the amusing thing about it is that they are."
- Father Kevin Keaney, 1st MarDiv Chaplain, Korean War

Some people...are trained to do double and triple taps naturally, while the target is still standing upright. What happens when the target falls to the ground and is still shooting, if armed, or continues to be a threat? Do you continue to shoot, or worry about what the CSI forensics is gonna find?

A justified shoot, is a justified shoot.

__________________Jack

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." - Hemingway

Some people...are trained to do double and triple taps naturally, while the target is still standing upright. What happens when the target falls to the ground and is still shooting, if armed, or continues to be a threat? Do you continue to shoot, or worry about what the CSI forensics is gonna find?

A justified shoot, is a justified shoot.

+1...doesn't matter to me if he is standing up, lying down or standing on his head...if he is still a threat I will continue shooting. I personally go by what a very wise man once told me..."a dying man can still kill you or a loved one, a dead one cannot."

__________________
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington